Neil de Grasse Tyson: Finding What is True

April 20, 2017

This one’s going viral.


15 Responses to “Neil de Grasse Tyson: Finding What is True”

  1. J4Zonian Says:

    Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. Philip K. Dick

  2. vierotchka Says:

    That’s the video I posted to your Facebook timeline yesterday! ๐Ÿ˜€

  3. neilrieck Says:

    During the 1930s, NAZI Germany referred to “quantum mechanics” as “Jewish Science” then tried to suppress both the science and the people. The scientists who were fortunate enough to escape to America used “quantum mechanics” to build the first A-bomb, then nuclear reactors for submarine use which trickled down to the commercial sector. Not only did scientific knowledge help the Americans to win the war in the Pacific, it helped their burgeoning engineering-based economy. But the thing to remember here is this: “quantum mechanics” wasn’t a “Jewish Science”, its “just science”.

    Jumping forward 50+ years, some politicians in the west refer to “climate change science” as a “liberal science”. These short-sighted people are making the same mistake as know-it-all politicians did in NAZI Germany. This will force the mass migration of educated scientists and engineers elsewhere to develop renewable technologies in other countries.

  4. Tom Bates Says:

    It seems to me the idea should be to look at the data and than use science to make sense of it. The data does not show the world warming in an excessive manor. The current change is about the same as the plunge into the little ice age, IE 400 roughly years and the current climb out is about the same length of time though is is colder than it was in 1000 AD unless trees than old found under a melting glacier in Alaska grew under the ice which is unlikely. NOAA measurements of ocean rise trends of say Sydney or Johnston atoll are 3 inches in the next 100 years. Measurement of actual CO2 warming from 2000-2009 was 2/10ths of a watt per square meter, if the CO2 continues to rise at the same rate it will be 0.038F warmer in 2100 than in 2000. Never mind RSS and UAH data do not show a warming trend and STAR a cooling trend. Giss is 92 percent estimates so you can believe in that or not , it is a free country.

    • lesliegraham1 Says:

      The science does show that the Earth IS warming in ‘an excessive manor'[sic] so right from your first sentence you are wrong.

    • lesliegraham1 Says:

      It’s long been known that the “Little Ice Age” was not in any way an “ice age”.
      Nor was the LIA global, and “it” was not even a single event.
      There were NO globally synchronous multi decadal cold intervals that define a worldwide LIA.
      In short the LIA is a myth.

      It’s true that all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880 in western Europe – punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.
      The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic and western Europe than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions.
      The Earth’s average global temperature continued it’s very slow cooling from the Holocene Climatic Optimum some 7000 years ago.

      Same goes for the MWP.

      Here’s a temperature reconstruction for the last 1000 years:

      The green dots on that graph are based on this study:

      It took 78 researchers from 24 countries – together with many other colleagues – over seven years to painstakingly piece together this climate reconstruction which, by the way, was published in ‘Nature’ – the most respected of all the science journals.

      Their study was based on 511 climate archives from around the world and uses millions of data points from a huge range of temperature proxies, such as documents, ice, lakes, pollen, tree rings, corals, seabeds and speleothems.

      There is absolutely NO evidence that the global average temperature during the medieval period was warmer than the global average temperature today. Indeed there is overwhelming evidence that it wasn’t. Not by a long shot.

      As the paper put’s it:

      “…The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century….”

      Got that? Long term slow cooling until the late 1800’s.
      It goes on;

      “…There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age…Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971โ€“2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years…”

      It’s hotter now. Clear enough?
      If not then there’s more. There is this study – also published in Nature:

      Which also confirms;

      “…In conjunction with an independent Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction ensemble, this record reveals an extended cold period (1594โ€“1677) in both hemispheres but no globally coherent warm phase during the pre-industrial (1000โ€“1850) era. The current (post-1974) warm phase is the only period of the past millennium where both hemispheres are likely to have experienced contemporaneous warm extremes…”

      If you can link to larger, more comprehensive reconstruction that shows otherwise, then please do so as I would be very interested in reading that too. If not then please stop posting these tired old myths.
      There is an old schematic of central England temperatures to 1950 drawn by a scientist name of Lamb back in the 70’s.
      Monckton claims it is the one true global temperature record to 2010. Some fools believe him.

    • Tommy Poo,

      When are you going to retract (and apologize for) the lies you told about NASA/GISS nearly a year ago? You know, the lies I was able to debunk by applying straightforward high-school math and college-undergrad programming skills?

      Or are those skills too far above your pay grade?

    • Lionel Smith Says:

      The data does not show the world warming in an excessive manor.

      You are clearly unaware of the true situation as described here: Humans on the verge of causing Earthโ€™s fastest climate change in 50m years

      and why is cryosphere mass decreasing year on year.

      Then there is this: This Graphic Puts Global Warming in Full Perspective.

  5. Tom Bates Says:

    Warmers which like to post on this blog simply ignore data like the past arctic data on when it was ice free. One has to look at the methane claims and than what happened when it was warmer in the past in the arctic to evaluate those claims.
    This shows the arctic ice free in summer for very long periods, thousands of years. What happened to the methane during that period. It certainly did not wind up on Mars, maybe the estimates of methane in the arctic are way over blown or something happened to it before it got into the atmosphere as nothing resembling the claims by the warmers happened during that period..

    • Glenn Martin Says:

      You are aware that methane in the atmosphere eventually reacts with oxygen to form CO2 and water don’t you? It doesn’t just hang around but while it’s there it’s a very strong greenhouse gas; MUCH stronger than CO2.

  6. Tom Bates Says:
    is another data ignored by many who believe in doom and gloom. the world temperatures are not stable, never have been stable and vary a lot in very short time periods even if those periods are longer than our lifetimes.

    When it was warmer, the world was not doom and gloom. as this shows.

    What the AGW crowd ignores, perhaps because it is a real problem is the number of people on the planet and the resulting damage to the planet. You cannot continue to add people when the box is not infinite in size.

    • Tommy Poo,

      From the link you referenced:

      Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100

      That doesn’t exactly support the ridiculous notion of yours that climate change isn’t a serious problem.

      BTW, I’ve met Jeff Severinghaus and have spoken with him (albeit briefly). You are no Jeff Severinghaus. In fact, you wouldn’t be qualified to wash the test-tubes in his lab.

      FYI, here’s Dr. Severinghaus on ocean acidification and the climate future:

      And here’s Dr. Severinghaus on how we know that humans are changing the climate:

      And here’s how an audience filled with scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) reacted when Dr. Severinghaus uttered the words “Fox News”: Take note of the derisive laughter.

      If you were a student at UCSD/SIO you wouldn’t make it past the first year. And the only reason you’d even get that far is that UCSD has a “three-strikes” policy before failing students are bounced out. Three strikes means three quarters of a GPA under 2.0. Frankly, I doubt that you’d be able to put *any* GPA points on the board at that university. You’d most likely be out of there with a Blutarski GPA of 0.0.

    • Lionel Smith Says:

      What the AGW crowd ignores, perhaps because it is a real problem is the number of people on the planet and the resulting damage to the planet. You cannot continue to add people when the box is not infinite in size.

      Ignores! You lying hound.

      The truth is a good deal more complex than this being well described by Tony Juniper in his book What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?: How Money Really Does Grow On Trees. The chapter titles provide clues onto topics covered. If it didn’t cause you to jump over much important information I would advise you read the final chapter ‘False Economy? ‘ which counters your specific, simplistic, point.

    • Glenn Martin Says:

      Ok. Regarding your second point I’ll just point out to you that the Sahara is NOT the globe and that it can be wetter in the Sahara and the average global temperature need not have got cooler. If you had actually read the article you would have noticed it attributed the greening to a change in the earths’ tilt, NOT a change in the earths’ distance from the sun which is what would actually affect the amount of energy the earth receives. So it affected regional precipitation, NOT global temperature.
      Are we clear on this?
      Even if the cause had been a change in the amount of energy the earth receives, what is being discussed on this site is the energy the earth RETAINS due to greenhouse gases.
      So while both affect the global average temperature, orbital changes mean less or more energy coming in and changes in GHG concentrations mean an increase or decrease in energy going out.

      By the way, MORE GHGs mean MORE heat being retained.

  7. J4Zonian Says:

    The richest 7-10% of people on Earth pump out half the greenhouse gases and make decisions that control most of the rest (for example, emissions from factories in China are attributed to China, though the stuff ends up in the US etc. and so does most of the money; land speculation by Chinese, USers and others in Africa continues the tradition of colonialism and neo-colonialism–theft of resources from the poorest.) The poorest 6 billion emit only about 20% of the GHGs. This is a problem caused almost entirely by the richest few percent of people on Earth.

    The solutions to climate catastrophe and the larger ecological crisis are efficiency, wiser lives, clean safe renewable energy, reforestation, transformation of chemical industrial ag to low-meat organic permaculture and transformation of industry to benign closed-loop biomimicing forms. We need to do this immediately in the form of a global US-WWII-style mobilization and eliminate at least 90% of fossil fuel use in the next 5-8 years.

Leave a Reply to vierotchka Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: